Re: Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

Sorry self correction :
Please read :
Cioranescu 'Dictionar Etimologic Rom^an'
in place of
Densusianu 'Dictionar Etimologic Rom^an'



--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> Piotr wrote:
> > The normal treatment of CrV.../ClV... sequences in Hungarian

loans

> form
> > Slavic is epentesis: CVrV.../CVlV... (no matter if in Slavic the
> initial
> > cluster was original or had developed as a result of liquid
> metathesis).
> > The second vowel may then be syncopated, leaving only

CVr.../CVl...

> > provided that Hungarian syllabification rules allow it. This is
> what
> > happened in
> >
> > szerda 'Wednesday' <-- *sreda/*sre^da < *serda
> >
> > but also e.g. in
> >
> > szalma 'straw' <-- *slama/*sloma < *solma
> > szolga 'servant' <-- *sluga
>
> First, I'm glad to see that there isn't a second Methathesis in
> Hungarian in all these words...
>
> Based on the information that I got all your examples showing

initial

> *CR *CL clusters have attested Older Hungarian forms showing the
> epenthetic vowels.
>
> Here they are:
>
> 1. Sl. *serda > Sl. *sreda/*sre^da > OMagh./Reg. szereda > szerda
> (see also: 'Csikszereda' rom. 'Miercurea Ciuc')
> (I don't know why you presented this example again after I

presented

> the vowel inside the regional/older form...)
>
> 2. Sl. sluga > OMagh. szuluga > Magh. szolga
>
> 3. Sl. slama > OMagh. szalama > Magh. szalma
>
>
> So All of your examples showing initial *CR *CL clusters has Old
> Hungarian attested variants where the epenthetic vowel Clearly
> Appears.
>
> This is not the case with Magh. 'szarka' that is older attested
> as 'zarka'.
>
> So as I said the syncopation above (that Exists for sure nobody
> denied it) is a very recent phenomenon in Hungarian allowing us to
> still have Traces (for all your examples) of old/regional forms
> showing the epenthetic vowels.
>
> So Nobody denied the syncopation : I said only that this phenomenon
> is not so old so we still have attested Traces of the epenthetic
> vowels that is not the case in 'szarka'.
>
> These epenthetic vowels clearly appears also in the other examples
> too:
>
> 4. Sl. služba > Magh. zsolozsma
>
> 5. Sl. srec'a > Magh. szerencze
>
> 6. Sl. brazda > Magh. barázda
>
> 7. Sl. klas > Magh. kalász
>
> 8. Rom. or Sl. krac^un > Magh. karácsony
>
> 9. Sl. kralj > Magh. király
>
>
> We have an i-syncopation in 2 words: malina > málna, palica > pálca
> by both words are not related to initial CL CR loaned clusters:
> But this is normal because even in 'szarka' we saw that INNER rk lk
> clusters are possible and stable (depending on the stress position

in

> Old Hungarian and in the source word).
> So please do not mix the two cases: we talk here about the

treatment

> of Initial Loaned Clusters *SR *SL as in case of *sraka/*svraka.
>
> In Conlusion:
> For instance the three examples that you gave us are Not Good At

All:

> because all of them have attested Magyar forms with the epenthetic
> vowels that is not the case related to Magyar 'szarka'.
>
> Sl.*sluga > szuluga > szolga
> Sl.*sreda > szereda > szerda
> Sl.*slama > szalama > szalma
>
> So once again please shows us some examples with Initial Clusters

*CL

> *CR where the epenthetic vowels dissapeared So Soon that they are

Not

> Attested in Hungarian as would be the case for 'szarka'.
>
> You cannot show them because these examples Do Not Exists.
>
> As result Magh. 'szarka' cannot be a Slavic Loan from *sraka *svraka
>
> Piotr wrote:
> > You'd like to save the etymology by
> > adducing Rom. tzarkã, which you would like to be a substratal
> > "Proto-Albanian" word. Howevere, the absence of any Albanian
> cognates
> > renders your claim unprovable.
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand your logic here: If Proto-Albanians
> loaned the word for 'dog' (from Latin) this clearly shows that
> previously they hadn't a word for dog? (maybe *tsunu or something
> similar). Of course they had one, and they lost it. So there is
> nothing wrong in this logic.
>
> Secondly: I already posted a second pair of words :
> Rom. doina 'popular song' - Lith. daina '(popular) song'
> where Rom. 'doina' is also not attested in Albanian, in order not

to

> work with singularities here.
>
> Note: I also well understood your reserves regarding Rom. oi Lith

ai,

> but please allow me to come back in another message on this subject
> and to open a new topic: in order not to open more topics in the

same

> time.
>
> I can add here for instance that the regionalism in Transilvania

was

> 'dainã' that seems to be the older form.
> (I found this information to:
> Hasdeu 'Folcloristica'
> Densusianu 'Dictionar Etimologic Rom^an)
>
> The main argument of Rom. 'tsarca' as substratual word is the fact
> that it fits perfectly the PIE of Lithuanian word (*k^orh2kah2)
> based only on : k^ > ts ; o > a. Is this only a coincidence?
>
>
> Piotr wrote:
> > (2) It is a loan from Romanian (where <tzarkã> isn't even the
> ordinary
> > word for 'magpie').
>
> You are not right here. The main word for 'magpie' in

Transilvania

> and Moldova is 'tsarcã' (so 2/3 of the country use it as main
> word). 'tsarcã' is also present in South Part of the country too:

is

> not an unkown word there, where 'cotsofanã' is the main word in use
> for 'magpie'.
> We have both 'm^atsa' and 'pisica' in Romanian

for 'cat': 'pisica'

> is used more than 'm^atsa' but this doesn't means that 'm^atsa' is

a

> recent loan, in fact is much much older than 'pisica'.
>
>
> > The ultimate origin of PBSl. c'(w)árka: is an independent

question.

> In
> > the light of our previous discussions I consider a borrowing from
> > "Dacian" to be a serious hypothesis, one that provides the word
> with a
> > reasonable etymology (< *kWersnah2) and explains its form much
> better
> > than any other that I've seen.
>
> I have serious doubts that we have 'rn' in c^ora...'rn' is

still

> present in Proto-Albanian : see Lat. Infernus 'hell' > Alb. ferr,

so

> the supposed 'loaning moment' of Romanian c^ora doesn't fit

regarding

> the timeframes of Alb. c^>s and of Alb. rn > rr.
>
> (But I will come back in a different message too, because seems

that

> some 'police-men' here count how many lines I wrote...).
>
> Secondly you need to have more examples of loans from Dacian to
> Balto-Slavic in order that such an hypothesis become credible (as I
> tried to do with Rom. 'doina' - Lith. 'daina' -> same meaning).
>
> Also last but not least: the Romanian kept both words: tsarca

and

> c^ora both showing a very old phonetism (of course I will not
> re-open Magh. 'szarka' history here).
>
> Only the Best,
> Marius